Tag Archives: the impact of postal grievances and arbitration issues in your federal disability claim

Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Fault Lines

In Geology, fault lines involve plate tectonic forces and planar fractures which reveal significant evidence for causes of earthquakes and help in determining and predicting areas of subduction zones and active faults which likely will result in future major earthquakes.  Movement, activity, fault? Sounds familiar. The anthropomorphic language, where we attribute human characteristics to inert matter, is a reflection of the beauty and elasticity of language.

For Federal and Postal employees engaged in employment disputes, and where medical conditions often underlay the seismic reverberations resulting from adversarial encounters between Supervisors, Workers and Agency cohesiveness within the greater context of asserting power and authority, often the wrong focus and engagement of the issues will result in greater calamities than was necessary if the issues were properly narrowed and pragmatically determined.

For Federal and Postal employees who suffer from a medical condition, such that the medical condition prevents one from performing one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, OPM Disability Retirement may be the option most viable in solving an ongoing issue.  Filed through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is a benefit accorded to all Federal and Postal employees, whether under FERS or CSRS.

In Geology, proper and precise location of fault lines may be crucial in determining essential predictive accuracy of seismic tectonic shifts; in human affairs, it is often not the fault lines which matter, but how to maneuver around them.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire 
Federal Disability Retirement Lawyer

    

Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Complexity & Collateral Issues

The very complexity of a case can often intersect with attempting to include collateral issues which arise in the workplace.  This is true for those filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS.  Of course a Federal or Postal employee may pursue independent but collateral issues, such as an EEOC Complaint, an independent issue governed by the Merit Systems Protection Board, a grievance issue through the agency, etc., and for the most part, such issues will be treated independently and will not directly impact a Federal Disability Retirement application, unless you choose to directly inject the issue into the application.  That would normally not be a wise decision.  It is important to keep the collateral issues as separate and apart from the Federal Disability Retirement application, unless that particular collateral issue has a direct bearing upon proving that, as a result of a medical condition, you are no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of your job.  Otherwise, you unnecessarily complicate your disability retirement case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Disability Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Peripheral Issues

The reason why it is important to keep the peripheral issues where they belong — outside of the primary focus of a Federal Disability Retirement application, and not inject such issues, complaints or narratives — is because they can have multiple unintended consequences.

If a Federal or Postal employee is engaged in collateral litigation, complaints, grievances or other outstanding administrative filings, including EEOC Complaints, lawsuits, formal grievances, MSPB appeals, etc., while for the most part such collateral filings will not directly or indirectly impact a Federal Disability Retirement application, they can if you directly inject such issues into the application for Federal Disability Retirement.

In other words, if in the Applicant’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A) , you refer directly to an outstanding EEOC Complaint, then it may spring forth a red flag that your case is one of “situational disability“.  Just a thought.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire